Well, That Was Quick - Bored Already, Not Going To Keep Apple Music

[boltjames]

I just got recommended "Intro to Kylie Minogue" (I have all her albums and most singles in my library), "Michael Jackson: The 90s and Beyond" (I have all Michael Jackson albums except Off The Wall), Air's 10,000 Hz Legend (their worst record, which I also own) and Britney's Blackout (her best record, which I also own).

Also, this:

View attachment 569355

I don't love you because you're dumber than a bag of bricks, Apple Music, that's why.

I've had enough.

View attachment 569354

Goodbye Apple Music. If good people on this forum, ones with more patience than me, tell me you've been improved, I might check you out again. Or not.

How to switch off Apple Music on Mac and iOS device

I really like Tame Impala and they released a new album today.

Despite using Apple Music for the better part of two weeks and having Tame Impala's entire output in my Library, Apple Music decided that I didn't need to know about one of my favorite band's new LP release. Instead, they offer me The Essential Billy Joel even though I own all of his songs too.

$12 a year is looking very good right now.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

The streaming market is trending upward (see below) and Apple has an iTunes user base of 800 million they can leverage. Seems like a pretty smart move based on those two things.

"As of June 2015, Spotify had 20 million paying subscribers worldwide, up from 10 million paying subscribers in May 2014."

"As industry observers see the growing dominance of streaming, many have waited for the moment when it would become more important than digital downloads. Warner Music Group announced its first quarter earnings ending on March 31, and the main takeaway from their report was that streaming has at last surpassed downloads as the primary source of revenue for the smallest of the three major labels."

At this rate of expansion, Apple Music will be formidable by 2025 by which point a new technology and a new service will make it obsolete.

Oh, but a few people will have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it before their Libraries get nuked and converted over to The Next Big Thing which will give the record companies yet another chance to fleece them silly.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Interestingly, Spotify suddenly went to No1 in Top Grossing in the UK; it hasn't been there for a long time, if ever.

Not exactly what Apple want a few weeks into their launch of Apple Music.

Perhaps Spotify has locked up some exclusive artists that are popular in Europe in an effort to block out Apple Music before it even gets off the ground.

BJ

 

[Rigby]

Hey, make the average $12, $24, $36, whatever you like. Why? It doesn't matter.

Why do you keep bringing it up then?

When you look at Spotify and its lame 15 million paying customers compared to iTunes whopping 800 million users

And how many of those 800 million accounts are actually used to buy music? Answer: We don't know, because Apple does not break out the numbers.

it's very apparent that we're talking about nothing here.

According to Spotify they have 20 million paying subscribers. One year ago, they had 10 million paying subscribers. That should give you an idea why it matters and why Apple tried to establish first iTunes Radio and now Apple Music.

 

[boltjames]

That's exactly what I thought you said.

I still find it staggering that a parent would presume that their kids would not discover music beyond the tastes of their parents.

And I find it a complete contradiction that on the one hand you claim to be have such an interest in music to make that claim, but on the other seem to have virtually no interest in new music.

Don't twist my words. I said that I have already archived 99% of what they would want from the 'deep catalog', the stuff from 1965 to 2005. Anything post-2005 would be up to them to decide and free services like iTunes Radio, Pandora, YouTube, TV shows, movies, and on and on will guide them and offer them tons of choice; they don't need to pay to be exposed to music. No one does.

And why would you not factor in any new music? Are you assuming you would virtually have your kids' music for the rest of their lives covered by your existing library as of today?

If their parents are cool parents into a lot of music, chances are that will rub off on them, and they'll have a healthy appetite for music for a long time into the future.

I love new music. There is nothing better than hearing a new album that's really creative and hits all the marks, you know you've found a new friend for life and the next month is going to be awesome driving around and listening to it. The issue is there just aren't that many exciting moments like that anymore. Discovery is dead because artistry is dead. Popularity contests and playcounts are the death knell for the industry, not the delivery service.

With a free iTunes radio station it might serve up a flow of tracks, but can you download specific albums and play them back in the order you want, when you want?

Yes, just a click to download them. And so long as I don't download more than 120 songs in a calendar year, it's cheaper too.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

They can't possibly do a better job, for two reasons:

1. They don't suggest music based on what you already like.

2. They don't provide instant access to virtually any music you might have even a passing interest in listening to.

And no - being able to buy anything doesn't really count.

1. iTunes Radio absolutely suggests music based on what I already like. I set up a handful of stations like "Sunday Morning Radio" (based on the Maroon 5 song) or "Daft Punk Radio" (based on the group) and from there forward each station operates just like Apple Music. Skip a song, it's notes it. Give it a thumbs up, it notes it. Looks at my iTunes purchase history.

2. iTunes Radio does provide instant access to any music I may have a passing interest in, and I'm one-click away from adding it to my Library, no different than 'offline listening' except you only pay for what you take offline, you don't pay for the privilege of skipping the stuff you don't like.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

I don't mind them recommending my albums. Sometimes it is nice to see something I bought ten years ago show up in my feed. However, I like the slider idea which is similar to how Rdio presents their artist radio ( would like to see Apple Music implement the artist radio slider, as well). However, people that find the app confusing, will probably find a new slider confusing, as well.

None of these services are good at recommendations and its for a very simple reason: They actually don't want you to discover new music. They just want you to buy more of what they're feeding you. There is a formula of what makes a hit record for each genre. It's why all songs sound the same. I listen to XM Alt Nation very frequently, it sounds like one big album from one artist. Labels play it safe. ROI is king. Artistry is dead.

BJ

 

[Supermallet]

I do have to commend the OP for successfully trolling this thread for so long.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I perpetually lease new BMW's and I get two years of XM for free and exchange my car for a new one every three years, so I only pay for 1 of 3 years of usage.

XM isn't great from a sound quality standpoint, but the channels are strong and the content is strong and no commercials. By the next generation of BMW's I'll have full iPhone integration which will allow me to run with free iTunes Radio and get rid of XM. Still no need for Apple Music.

BJ

XM isn't free when you lease a car. It is included in the price of the car and your monthly car payment.

 

[Uofmtiger]

None of these services are good at recommendations and its for a very simple reason: They actually don't want you to discover new music. They just want you to buy more of what they're feeding you. There is a formula of what makes a hit record for each genre. It's why all songs sound the same. I listen to XM Alt Nation very frequently, it sounds like one big album from one artist. Labels play it safe. ROI is king. Artistry is dead.

BJ

You should have just said from the beginning that you hate music and left it at that. My suggestion is that you check out podcasts or books on tape and not worry about the music streaming services.

 

[Arran]

From any song, tap a button and hear other songs like the one playing. Hear one you like, download the album and listen to it when you want.

I can certainly see the appeal of a "More Like This" button. But couldn't it's overuse lead to a somewhat homogeneous and bland listening experience?

Some of my best "discoveries" have been (and still are) genres I didn't even know existed. Stuff I just hear by accident while out-and-about and not actually listening to my music - or any music for that matter. They're all other people's music. Their choices. And what a diverse lot they are. Some have been so dramatically unlike my normal listening material that I can clearly remember where and when and who I was with when I first heard them. They stood out that much and bring back vivid memories going back decades.

So how does serendipity happen with an algorithm that just pushes you more of what you like?

 

[flur]

I perpetually lease new BMW's and I get two years of XM for free and exchange my car for a new one every three years, so I only pay for 1 of 3 years of usage.

So you're cool with renting cars, just not music?

 

[flur]

I do have to commend the OP for successfully trolling this thread for so long.

I just read his forum signature and now it all makes sense.

 

[shandyman]

I really like Tame Impala and they released a new album today.

Despite using Apple Music for the better part of two weeks and having Tame Impala's entire output in my Library, Apple Music decided that I didn't need to know about one of my favorite band's new LP release. Instead, they offer me The Essential Billy Joel even though I own all of his songs too.

$12 a year is looking very good right now.

BJ

So, you complain that Apple Music is recommending things to you by artists you already have. Then you complain it doesn't. Also, Tame Impala's New album is at the top of the new albums in 'New' tab. Just proving that you're deliberately ignoring things in there, just to try and fuel your inane argument

 

[shandyman]

1. iTunes Radio absolutely suggests music based on what I already like. I set up a handful of stations like "Sunday Morning Radio" (based on the Maroon 5 song) or "Daft Punk Radio" (based on the group) and from there forward each station operates just like Apple Music. Skip a song, it's notes it. Give it a thumbs up, it notes it. Looks at my iTunes purchase history.

2. iTunes Radio does provide instant access to any music I may have a passing interest in, and I'm one-click away from adding it to my Library, no different than 'offline listening' except you only pay for what you take offline, you don't pay for the privilege of skipping the stuff you don't like.

BJ

iTunes radio isn't free in the rest of the world and in the US, it's limited skips.

Also, you're not just one click from buying it, you've got to put your password in. Since you're making big things out of every little step, I thought I'd do the same....

 

[johngordon]

You didn't read my post.

How hard can it be just to a slider?

(joking!)

 

[johngordon]

Give me another factual datapoint and we can use that if you like. Right now all we know is that the average iTunes user spends $12 a year downloading music and Apple Music costs $120.

We don't really need better metrics, do we? Again, it's common sense.

Apple Music is designed for the hardcore music buyer because no one else would be foolish enough to spend $120 a year when they're usually spending $0 or $6 or $12. And there are very few hardcore music buyers because there is so little decent music to download anyway.

And that's the crux of this whole thing; consumers paying labels a guaranteed amount of money in a given month when they have provided nothing of quality. It only encourages the exact opposite of what you really want- heaps of great new music. You're actually paying them to do just the opposite. No need to take a risk to break a new band when the old ones are pumping in a new revenue stream.

BJ

Yes, we do need better figures, because that average is, in all likelihood, as many as tens of millions people who spend $0.00 on music, so by including them in your figures you are massively skewing your results.

Its not that Apple Music is designed for the hardcore music buyer (because I don't think 1-2 albums a month is particularly hardcore at all).

It would probably be more accurate to say that it is not for the lighter consumers of music.

On a scale that starts at 0 and could go up to pretty much anything, I don't see how a hardcore, extreme user is reached at just 1-2.

Can you stop wanging on about this whole "nothing of quality" thing - that's just your opinion. Many others would disagree, and say there's plenty of great new music coming out all the time.

As I said several pages ago, bands and artists will usually want to produce the best music they can - they're not all going to get a memo from The Record Industry saying "Hey, guys - FYI - we have enough good music now, so can you just write and record any old crap for those suckers? Thanks."

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Yes, we do need better figures, because that average is, in all likelihood, as many as tens of millions people who spend $0.00 on music, so by including them in your figures you are massively skewing your results.

Its not that Apple Music is designed for the hardcore music buyer (because I don't think 1-2 albums a month is particularly hardcore at all).

It would probably be more accurate to say that it is not for the lighter consumers of music.

On a scale that starts at 0 and could go up to pretty much anything, I don't see how a hardcore, extreme user is reached at just 1-2.

Can you stop wanging on about this whole "nothing of quality" thing - that's just your opinion. Many others would disagree, and say there's plenty of great new music coming out all the time.

As I said several pages ago, bands and artists will usually want to produce the best music they can - they're not all going to get a memo from The Record Industry saying "Hey, guys - FYI - we have enough good music now, so can you just write and record any old crap for those suckers? Thanks."

Your scale is flawed.

You buy 12-24 albums a year; that is way more than most people.

So yes, you're the 1%.

 

[Artimus12]

Got to say I'm with @boltjames on this AM subscription thing. I too have a 25,000+ track music library, free Internet radio (TuneIn Pro) for when those tracks are not what I want to listen to, and can't see the value in paying $10 a month for someone to guess at what I might like to hear, versus picking $10 worth of tracks and being able to transfer them to Micro-SD card for playback away from Apple's ecosystem.

If people neglect to build up their personal collection of non-DRM music, they'll forever be tied to Apple products no matter where they might lead.

I think AM is a short-sighted quick fix that'll leave many young folk without their own music collection, and having to pay out for their favourite tracks in the future anyway.

Good luck to you guys, but I don't believe streaming is something you should be paying for unless you can copy the tracks to other forms of media.

 

[zone23]

But you can never stop paying!

Yes for the price of one album a month I can listen to any album I want. You can always cancel and go back to buying singles or albums. Doesn't seem like many buy albums anymore. Your not locked in or under contract.

 

[johngordon]

Your scale is flawed.

You buy 12-24 albums a year; that is way more than most people.

So yes, you're the 1%.

Only if you include everyone who buys no music.

It makes much more sense to base all of this just on people who buy any music.

And I can't believe that only 1% of people who are interested in music and buy music buy more than 12 albums a year.

Either way, it doesn't even matter because people are not being forced to the subscription model.

If people only buy a few albums a year, they can continue to do just that.

All this talk of making people pay 10x what they currently pay is a load of nonsense.

The streaming subscription model is not fundamentally flawed just because it doesn't cater for everyone.

Another good analogy might be unlimited cards that cinemas do.

Here in the the UK it typically works out as being worthwhile if you go and see 2 films a month.

If it costs $20 for a normal full price admission, an unlimited card might cost $30 a month, or $360 a year.

If people, on average, go to the cinema 3 times a year, would you argue that the unlimited card at $30 a month was a rip off, and should instead cost just $180 a year, with a couple of blu rays thrown in?

Because that is essentially what boltjames is arguing AM / Spotify should be doing.

 

[Arran]

I think AM is a short-sighted quick fix that'll leave many young folk without their own music collection, and having to pay out for their favourite tracks in the future anyway.

I agree. It's a bit like renting a snazzy, fully furnished apartment and living the high life because you can afford the monthly payments. Whereas the same money put into a monthly mortgage payment would only get you a fixer-upper. The true cost of the luxury apartment only becomes apparent after 30 years.

It's great having your own collection of music that's stable, reliable and always there for you. As someone alluded to earlier, it really does become the soundtrack to your life that nobody can take away. Not the streaming company and not the mobile data plan company.

 

[Uofmtiger]

Your scale is flawed.

You buy 12-24 albums a year; that is way more than most people.

So yes, you're the 1%.

People that had only $10 a month to spend on music had the ability to buy about one album a month in the old market. That doesn't mean they wouldn't rather take that ten dollars and listen to 30 albums a month. It just means they didn't have the money to buy thirty albums.

If they were spending more than ten dollars a month on CDs, they are now saving money with much more access to full albums.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I agree. It's a bit like renting a snazzy, fully furnished apartment and living the high life because you can afford the monthly payments. Whereas the same money put into a monthly mortgage payment would only get you a fixer-upper. The true cost of the luxury apartment only becomes apparent after 30 years.

It's great having your own collection of music that's stable, reliable and always there for you. As someone alluded to earlier, it really does become the soundtrack to your life that nobody can take away. Not the streaming company and not the mobile data plan company.

The main difference is that an investment in CDs will have close to no market value in the future. It will be like having a collection of VhS tapes.

The house might not be a great investment either. If the area you bought that house goes south, you may be upside down in the mortgage for years and not have the ability to easily move before it is paid off.

Here is a better plan for those currently spending more than ten bucks a month on music. Subscribe to Apple Music ( which is currently about 8.50 a month for a year thanks to the free three months) and take the extra money and put it in an interest earning savings account. Continue doing that for 30 years. Then when you want to stop streaming take all that money you saved and buy music that fits your taste at that moment. If you can find CDs, you should be able to get them pretty cheap.

 

[Paco II]

Decided to pop back into this thread for a visit, and wow, is this core concept *still* being debated here?! Music collectors can keep collecting and holding onto this notion of permanency, but if you refuse to acknowledge that that way of enjoying music is on the decline, slowly being replaced by the 'renting' of music, you are simply sticking your head in the sand. The cost or value of these services is a separate thing. But those who embrace streaming sub services are not worried about something not being available in the future - they are confident it will be, and why wouldn't it be?! Music will persist. And so will sub services. If you are not worried that something will be available to you at any time in the future, it eliminates the need or concern about 'owning' it or needing a physical copy. So*really* the question comes down to this notion that you think the music won't be available in the future. Why do you think that?

It's great having your own collection of music that's stable, reliable and always there for you. As someone alluded to earlier, it really does become the soundtrack to your life that nobody can take away. Not the streaming company and not the mobile data plan company.